The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

Nothing shows a high schoolers commitment to a cause better than being willing to walk out of class over it....

Seriously, kids in my area are doing this too. None of my friends with high schoolers are terrible enough to consent to their high school aged kids doing this. They all have enough sense to point out if you want to show you're committed, show up for something an hour before or after school, of god forbid, on a saturday.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

If you don't like it change it.

If you don't live in the USA. B$tch all your want but.... MYOFB

Technically you don't even have to change it. You just have to change the interpretation of it at the Supreme Court.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The second amendment is only 27 words long, and ambiguous in many ways. It's very open to interpretation, which is what the hardliners who staged a hostile takeover of the NRA in 1977 recognized. Since then they've successfully reshaped public perception, influenced (to put it politely) lawmakers and pushed judges favorable to their interpretation (hint: they didn't even bother to inscribe the first half of the amendment on their DC headquarters but they did the second half).

The Supreme Court didn't formally affirm an individual right to own a gun until 2008. This is what it looks like when you're losing a game you didn't even realize you were playing. I think people are starting to notice.

And for the record I am an American citizen. And a gun owner. But not an NRA member.

This guy was a reserve police officer who thought it a great idea to demonstrate with a loaded gun how to be "safe" around one. Also, WTF about the school not notifying anyone, including the parent whose kid had bullet fragments in his neck?! This was in CA, too, somewhere like Texas. Will other schools try to sweep shit like this under the rug, too?

This guy was a reserve police officer who thought it a great idea to demonstrate with a loaded gun how to be "safe" around one. Also, WTF about the school not notifying anyone, including the parent whose kid had bullet fragments in his neck?! This was in CA, too, somewhere like Texas. Will other schools try to sweep shit like this under the rug, too?

A school resource officer (as in full-time professional law enforcement officer) in Virginia also had an AD today

This guy was a reserve police officer who thought it a great idea to demonstrate with a loaded gun how to be "safe" around one. Also, WTF about the school not notifying anyone, including the parent whose kid had bullet fragments in his neck?! This was in CA, too, somewhere like Texas. Will other schools try to sweep shit like this under the rug, too?

A school resource officer (as in full-time professional law enforcement officer) in Virginia also had an AD today

There are always going to be accidental discharges and injuries. The question is whether people are willing to accept those accidental discharges and injuries in exchange for having an armed presence on campus in the event of a school shooting. I suspect that if you look at it on an aggregate basis, they are both so rare that neither moves the needle much, and people's opinion on whether it's worth it will just depend on how "frequent" one or the other "feels" to them.

This guy was a reserve police officer who thought it a great idea to demonstrate with a loaded gun how to be "safe" around one. Also, WTF about the school not notifying anyone, including the parent whose kid had bullet fragments in his neck?! This was in CA, too, somewhere like Texas. Will other schools try to sweep shit like this under the rug, too?

A school resource officer (as in full-time professional law enforcement officer) in Virginia also had an AD today

I'm on the fence about arming teachers, but the well trained and armed Broward County Sheriff's officer(s) sat outside while an unarmed and untrained coach went into the school in Florida. He might have had a chance with a firearm.

Maybe the schools/police forces should institute the no playing with your gun during school hours rule. That certainly appear to be what happened in CA. Not calling the parents on that one is a huge WTF.

Maybe the schools/police forces should institute the no playing with your gun during school hours rule. That certainly appear to be what happened in CA. Not calling the parents on that one is a huge WTF.

Not to mention the insane legal liability from A. having a teacher messing with a gun in class without parental consent and B. not informing parents in a timely manner that an incident occurred. They can fire him all they want, but the district is going to be paying through the nose on this one.

Nothing shows a high schoolers commitment to a cause better than being willing to walk out of class over it....

Seriously, kids in my area are doing this too. None of my friends with high schoolers are terrible enough to consent to their high school aged kids doing this. They all have enough sense to point out if you want to show you're committed, show up for something an hour before or after school, of god forbid, on a saturday. [/quote]

I guess I am a terrible parent in that I did give consent for my teenaged son to participate in a peaceful walkout from his school today. It's something we talked about and he was passionate enough about the topic - along with millions of other high school students around the country - to take action. Last year he took part in an immigration protest. This terrible parent is very proud!

Overall, the hope of this country comes from young people rising up. It's been hard not to feel despondent this past year. Let's hope we are seeing the end of the dinosaurs and will to let peace and sanity take place.

Nothing shows a high schoolers commitment to a cause better than being willing to walk out of class over it....

Seriously, kids in my area are doing this too. None of my friends with high schoolers are terrible enough to consent to their high school aged kids doing this. They all have enough sense to point out if you want to show you're committed, show up for something an hour before or after school, of god forbid, on a saturday. [/quote]

I guess I am a terrible parent in that I did give consent for my teenaged son to participate in a peaceful walkout from his school today. It's something we talked about and he was passionate enough about the topic - along with millions of other high school students around the country - to take action. Last year he took part in an immigration protest. This terrible parent is very proud!

Overall, the hope of this country comes from young people rising up. It's been hard not to feel despondent this past year. Let's hope we are seeing the end of the dinosaurs and will to let peace and sanity take place.[/quote]

Yeah, it's TERRIBLE to teach a teenager that it's good to exercise his right to peaceful assembly and protest. Just terrible, and un-American.

I think its cheap to use children to further political agendas, as its a clear appeal to emotion, as any criticism of a child's arugment turns into a discussion of how its mean to do so... and i disagree with some portions of proposed gun control measures... but I would allow my child to walk out of school as part of this protest. I would also let them suffer any consequences that came from it though.

And it seems like the media is misconstruing alot of the walk outs, as many students interviewed, locally anyway, said they were honoring the dead, not marching for gun control.

This guy was a reserve police officer who thought it a great idea to demonstrate with a loaded gun how to be "safe" around one. Also, WTF about the school not notifying anyone, including the parent whose kid had bullet fragments in his neck?! This was in CA, too, somewhere like Texas. Will other schools try to sweep shit like this under the rug, too?

A school resource officer (as in full-time professional law enforcement officer) in Virginia also had an AD today

There are always going to be accidental discharges and injuries. The question is whether people are willing to accept those accidental discharges and injuries in exchange for having an armed presence on campus in the event of a school shooting. I suspect that if you look at it on an aggregate basis, they are both so rare that neither moves the needle much, and people's opinion on whether it's worth it will just depend on how "frequent" one or the other "feels" to them.

I personally do not want the risk of my child being accidentally killed or injured in school. If we start arming thousands of teachers, these accidents WILL increase. School shootings are horrid, yes, but still much rarer than accidents with guns.

I think its cheap to use children to further political agendas, as its a clear appeal to emotion, as any criticism of a childs aurugment turns into a discussion of how its mean to do so... and i disagree with some portions of proposed gun contr measures, I would allow my child to walk out of school as part of this protest. I would also let them suffer any consewuences that came from it though.

And it seems like the media is misconstruing alot of the walk outs, as many students interviewed, locally anyway, said they were honoring the dead, not marching for gun control.

I think an argumet can definitely be made that hauling a six year-old out into the spotlight before he or she know what she is doing, and teaching her to parrot the adultís talking points, is cheap.

These are high school students. Who made their own decisions, based on the fact that their own peers are getting shot to death and their elected representatives seem so in the pockets of the gun lobby that they are determined to take no real measures to stop it.

At seventeen years old, I was able to see injustice and hypocrisy for what they were. This is hardly an example of what youíre positing.

I think its cheap to use children to further political agendas, as its a clear appeal to emotion, as any criticism of a childs aurugment turns into a discussion of how its mean to do so... and i disagree with some portions of proposed gun contr measures, I would allow my child to walk out of school as part of this protest. I would also let them suffer any consewuences that came from it though.

And it seems like the media is misconstruing alot of the walk outs, as many students interviewed, locally anyway, said they were honoring the dead, not marching for gun control.

I think an argumet can definitely be made that hauling a six year-old out into the spotlight before he or she know what she is doing, and teaching her to parrot the adultís talking points, is cheap.

These are high school students. Who made their own decisions, based on the fact that their own peers are getting shot to death and their elected representatives seem so in the pockets of the gun lobby that they are determined to take no real measures to stop it.

At seventeen years old, I was able to see injustice and hypocrisy for what they were. This is hardly an example of what youíre positing.

So much this.

I've seen parents put bumper stickers on their small children at political rallies. It really bothers me and I disagree with it on principle, but it's their right as parents.

Most of the student protesters will be eligible to vote in the next presidential election (many even sooner). They're allowed to speak for themselves. Just like the troll a few posts up.

I think its cheap to use children to further political agendas, as its a clear appeal to emotion, as any criticism of a childs aurugment turns into a discussion of how its mean to do so... and i disagree with some portions of proposed gun contr measures, I would allow my child to walk out of school as part of this protest. I would also let them suffer any consewuences that came from it though.

And it seems like the media is misconstruing alot of the walk outs, as many students interviewed, locally anyway, said they were honoring the dead, not marching for gun control.

I think an argumet can definitely be made that hauling a six year-old out into the spotlight before he or she know what she is doing, and teaching her to parrot the adultís talking points, is cheap.

These are high school students. Who made their own decisions, based on the fact that their own peers are getting shot to death and their elected representatives seem so in the pockets of the gun lobby that they are determined to take no real measures to stop it.

At seventeen years old, I was able to see injustice and hypocrisy for what they were. This is hardly an example of what youíre positing.

Kris -

My child's high school held a special assembly to talk about school safety and honor the dead. My child specifically stated she did not want to make a political statement and the event was designed to avoid doing that. Despite that, the media reported her school as participating.

In addition, the event was advertised in the media as ending gun violence and honoring the dead. I'm all for both of those goals, but don't agree with some of the methods being advocated to prevent gun violence. I suspect many high schooler's didn't see the nuance there.

I think its cheap to use children to further political agendas, as its a clear appeal to emotion, as any criticism of a childs aurugment turns into a discussion of how its mean to do so... and i disagree with some portions of proposed gun contr measures, I would allow my child to walk out of school as part of this protest. I would also let them suffer any consewuences that came from it though.

And it seems like the media is misconstruing alot of the walk outs, as many students interviewed, locally anyway, said they were honoring the dead, not marching for gun control.

I think an argumet can definitely be made that hauling a six year-old out into the spotlight before he or she know what she is doing, and teaching her to parrot the adultís talking points, is cheap.

These are high school students. Who made their own decisions, based on the fact that their own peers are getting shot to death and their elected representatives seem so in the pockets of the gun lobby that they are determined to take no real measures to stop it.

At seventeen years old, I was able to see injustice and hypocrisy for what they were. This is hardly an example of what youíre positing.

Even at 18 I held a lot of views that turned out not to be valid or required significant nuance, and was very unduely influences by peer pressure. But fair enough, in high school I was developing my opinions, however wrong they were.

If my child were participating in this I would prepare them that their actual views will be misused by political actors, (See Midwest's post, and a number of other examples) and I'd give them information that they aren't hearing from the media. I'd show them how a lot of the statistics they see are manipulated to portray a preordained conclusion, then let them make their choice.

There are always going to be accidental discharges and injuries. The question is whether people are willing to accept those accidental discharges and injuries in exchange for having an armed presence on campus in the event of a school shooting. I suspect that if you look at it on an aggregate basis, they are both so rare that neither moves the needle much, and people's opinion on whether it's worth it will just depend on how "frequent" one or the other "feels" to them.

I personally do not want the risk of my child being accidentally killed or injured in school. If we start arming thousands of teachers, these accidents WILL increase. School shootings are horrid, yes, but still much rarer than accidents with guns.

I'd like to challenge that premise ("much rarer than accidents with guns"), because you need to compare the accident rate of people while carrying concealed. I couldn't, in a quick search, find such a specific number. But we can at least get in the ballpark. We *do* know the total accidental death rate, which is around 500 per year. About a third of those are kids, who wouldn't be eligible to carry concealed in the first place, so that takes down to a maximum possibility of 450 or so. If we take this data as a proxy (it's the best I could come up with on short notice), and assume that all 450 deaths happened while carrying concealed, that leaves about 35% of all those deaths happening outside the home, gun show, gun shop, gun range, etc. That takes us down to 150 deaths per year. That's roughly twice the rate of deaths in actual school shootings, and that's with every assumption leaning in that direction. More realistically, however, you're looking at double-digit accidental deaths per year while carrying concealed, and therefore in the same range as school shootings.

If that's not a risk you're willing to take, fair enough. But it's important to assess the actual rather than perceived risk.

I think its cheap to use children to further political agendas, as its a clear appeal to emotion, as any criticism of a childs aurugment turns into a discussion of how its mean to do so... and i disagree with some portions of proposed gun contr measures, I would allow my child to walk out of school as part of this protest. I would also let them suffer any consewuences that came from it though.

And it seems like the media is misconstruing alot of the walk outs, as many students interviewed, locally anyway, said they were honoring the dead, not marching for gun control.

I think an argumet can definitely be made that hauling a six year-old out into the spotlight before he or she know what she is doing, and teaching her to parrot the adultís talking points, is cheap.

These are high school students. Who made their own decisions, based on the fact that their own peers are getting shot to death and their elected representatives seem so in the pockets of the gun lobby that they are determined to take no real measures to stop it.

At seventeen years old, I was able to see injustice and hypocrisy for what they were. This is hardly an example of what youíre positing.

Kris -

My child's high school held a special assembly to talk about school safety and honor the dead. My child specifically stated she did not want to make a political statement and the event was designed to avoid doing that. Despite that, the media reported her school as participating.

In addition, the event was advertised in the media as ending gun violence and honoring the dead. I'm all for both of those goals, but don't agree with some of the methods being advocated to prevent gun violence. I suspect many high schooler's didn't see the nuance there.

MW

That is the media. There is a hell of a lot to criticize about the media. They use everything they can to get ratings.

You will notice I was responding to Ncornilsen's first paragraph/point. Not the second.

I think its cheap to use children to further political agendas, as its a clear appeal to emotion, as any criticism of a childs aurugment turns into a discussion of how its mean to do so... and i disagree with some portions of proposed gun contr measures, I would allow my child to walk out of school as part of this protest. I would also let them suffer any consewuences that came from it though.

And it seems like the media is misconstruing alot of the walk outs, as many students interviewed, locally anyway, said they were honoring the dead, not marching for gun control.

I think an argumet can definitely be made that hauling a six year-old out into the spotlight before he or she know what she is doing, and teaching her to parrot the adultís talking points, is cheap.

These are high school students. Who made their own decisions, based on the fact that their own peers are getting shot to death and their elected representatives seem so in the pockets of the gun lobby that they are determined to take no real measures to stop it.

At seventeen years old, I was able to see injustice and hypocrisy for what they were. This is hardly an example of what youíre positing.

Even at 18 I held a lot of views that turned out not to be valid or required significant nuance, and was very unduely influences by peer pressure. But fair enough, in high school I was developing my opinions, however wrong they were.

If my child were participating in this I would prepare them that their actual views will be misused by political actors, (See Midwest's post, and a number of other examples) and I'd give them information that they aren't hearing from the media. I'd show them how a lot of the statistics they see are manipulated to portray a preordained conclusion, then let them make their choice.

Even at 50+, I would say there are a lot of people who hold a lot of views that turn out not to be valid or require significant nuance. And are very unduly influenced by peer pressure.

Teaching one's children about the larger context of one's actions, including the fact that the media, special interest lobbies, politicians, and the like, are likely to try to use their actions for their own ends is an important part of teaching one's children about the world.

Nothing shows a high schoolers commitment to a cause better than being willing to walk out of class over it....

Seriously, kids in my area are doing this too. None of my friends with high schoolers are terrible enough to consent to their high school aged kids doing this. They all have enough sense to point out if you want to show you're committed, show up for something an hour before or after school, of god forbid, on a saturday.

I guess I am a terrible parent in that I did give consent for my teenaged son to participate in a peaceful walkout from his school today. It's something we talked about and he was passionate enough about the topic - along with millions of other high school students around the country - to take action. Last year he took part in an immigration protest. This terrible parent is very proud!

Overall, the hope of this country comes from young people rising up. It's been hard not to feel despondent this past year. Let's hope we are seeing the end of the dinosaurs and will to let peace and sanity take place.

Passionate enough to walk out of a class? They could have showed the same passion by just putting up a facebook post.

When they are passionate enough to actually sacrifice, even if it's just showing up to school an hour earlier or staying an hour later, that will be something.

I think its cheap to use children to further political agendas, as its a clear appeal to emotion, as any criticism of a childs aurugment turns into a discussion of how its mean to do so... and i disagree with some portions of proposed gun contr measures, I would allow my child to walk out of school as part of this protest. I would also let them suffer any consewuences that came from it though.

And it seems like the media is misconstruing alot of the walk outs, as many students interviewed, locally anyway, said they were honoring the dead, not marching for gun control.

I think an argumet can definitely be made that hauling a six year-old out into the spotlight before he or she know what she is doing, and teaching her to parrot the adultís talking points, is cheap.

These are high school students. Who made their own decisions, based on the fact that their own peers are getting shot to death and their elected representatives seem so in the pockets of the gun lobby that they are determined to take no real measures to stop it.

At seventeen years old, I was able to see injustice and hypocrisy for what they were. This is hardly an example of what youíre positing.

Kris -

My child's high school held a special assembly to talk about school safety and honor the dead. My child specifically stated she did not want to make a political statement and the event was designed to avoid doing that. Despite that, the media reported her school as participating.

In addition, the event was advertised in the media as ending gun violence and honoring the dead. I'm all for both of those goals, but don't agree with some of the methods being advocated to prevent gun violence. I suspect many high schooler's didn't see the nuance there.

MW

That is the media. There is a hell of a lot to criticize about the media. They use everything they can to get ratings.

You will notice I was responding to Ncornilsen's first paragraph/point. Not the second.

The organizers were adept at using the media (who willingly obliged) to promote their gun control agenda. If this had been advertised strictly as a walkout to support gun control, it wouldn't have had near the support it had.

Support for the stated goals or even participation is alternative events is being implied as support for the cause. That's on both the media and the organizers.

Incidentally, I thought this was a great opportunity for discussion with my child about the issues involved. Hopefully many other parents took that opportunity as well.

Nothing shows a high schoolers commitment to a cause better than being willing to walk out of class over it....

Seriously, kids in my area are doing this too. None of my friends with high schoolers are terrible enough to consent to their high school aged kids doing this. They all have enough sense to point out if you want to show you're committed, show up for something an hour before or after school, of god forbid, on a saturday.

I guess I am a terrible parent in that I did give consent for my teenaged son to participate in a peaceful walkout from his school today. It's something we talked about and he was passionate enough about the topic - along with millions of other high school students around the country - to take action. Last year he took part in an immigration protest. This terrible parent is very proud!

Overall, the hope of this country comes from young people rising up. It's been hard not to feel despondent this past year. Let's hope we are seeing the end of the dinosaurs and will to let peace and sanity take place.

Passionate enough to walk out of a class? They could have showed the same passion by just putting up a facebook post.

When they are passionate enough to actually sacrifice, even if it's just showing up to school an hour earlier or staying an hour later, that will be something.

You're stuck on the consequences and sacrifice issue; that's fine you get to be. Many schools have events during the school day which have nothing to do with academics, such as rallies to cheer on the football team's win and things like that. A widespread one-time walkout as a call for stricter gun laws, for our elected officials to actually do their jobs, getting international press, is going to be far more effective t than a Facebook post. It could also be argued there's lots to learn about civic engagement, political process that might be best learned doing than spending that hour in a classroom.

The young people from Parkland are very articulate. It's embarrassing that a 16 or 17 year old is a far more engaged and informed speaker than the current occupant of the Oval Office.

Nothing shows a high schoolers commitment to a cause better than being willing to walk out of class over it....

Seriously, kids in my area are doing this too. None of my friends with high schoolers are terrible enough to consent to their high school aged kids doing this. They all have enough sense to point out if you want to show you're committed, show up for something an hour before or after school, of god forbid, on a saturday.

I guess I am a terrible parent in that I did give consent for my teenaged son to participate in a peaceful walkout from his school today. It's something we talked about and he was passionate enough about the topic - along with millions of other high school students around the country - to take action. Last year he took part in an immigration protest. This terrible parent is very proud!

Overall, the hope of this country comes from young people rising up. It's been hard not to feel despondent this past year. Let's hope we are seeing the end of the dinosaurs and will to let peace and sanity take place.

Passionate enough to walk out of a class? They could have showed the same passion by just putting up a facebook post.

When they are passionate enough to actually sacrifice, even if it's just showing up to school an hour earlier or staying an hour later, that will be something.

LOL

The sacrifice is seeing your peers getting shot to death and worrying that it could happen to you.

I get that you can't possibly bring yourself to allow that these kids are anything but lazy dumbshits, but seriously...

Nothing shows a high schoolers commitment to a cause better than being willing to walk out of class over it....

Seriously, kids in my area are doing this too. None of my friends with high schoolers are terrible enough to consent to their high school aged kids doing this. They all have enough sense to point out if you want to show you're committed, show up for something an hour before or after school, of god forbid, on a saturday.

I guess I am a terrible parent in that I did give consent for my teenaged son to participate in a peaceful walkout from his school today. It's something we talked about and he was passionate enough about the topic - along with millions of other high school students around the country - to take action. Last year he took part in an immigration protest. This terrible parent is very proud!

Overall, the hope of this country comes from young people rising up. It's been hard not to feel despondent this past year. Let's hope we are seeing the end of the dinosaurs and will to let peace and sanity take place.

Passionate enough to walk out of a class? They could have showed the same passion by just putting up a facebook post.

When they are passionate enough to actually sacrifice, even if it's just showing up to school an hour earlier or staying an hour later, that will be something.

LOL

The sacrifice is seeing your peers getting shot to death and worrying that it could happen to you.

I get that you can't possibly bring yourself to allow that these kids are anything but lazy dumbshits, but seriously...

Where did I say that anybody was a lazy dumbshit.

I just pointed out that walking out of class doesn't show any kind of commitment. Obviously it's a fair inference that I don't think it merits much attention, which is why the parents I know wouldn't condone it.

Nothing shows a high schoolers commitment to a cause better than being willing to walk out of class over it....

Seriously, kids in my area are doing this too. None of my friends with high schoolers are terrible enough to consent to their high school aged kids doing this. They all have enough sense to point out if you want to show you're committed, show up for something an hour before or after school, of god forbid, on a saturday.

I guess I am a terrible parent in that I did give consent for my teenaged son to participate in a peaceful walkout from his school today. It's something we talked about and he was passionate enough about the topic - along with millions of other high school students around the country - to take action. Last year he took part in an immigration protest. This terrible parent is very proud!

Overall, the hope of this country comes from young people rising up. It's been hard not to feel despondent this past year. Let's hope we are seeing the end of the dinosaurs and will to let peace and sanity take place.

Passionate enough to walk out of a class? They could have showed the same passion by just putting up a facebook post.

When they are passionate enough to actually sacrifice, even if it's just showing up to school an hour earlier or staying an hour later, that will be something.

LOL

The sacrifice is seeing your peers getting shot to death and worrying that it could happen to you.

I get that you can't possibly bring yourself to allow that these kids are anything but lazy dumbshits, but seriously...

Where did I say that anybody was a lazy dumbshit.

I just pointed out that walking out of class doesn't show any kind of commitment. Obviously it's a fair inference that I don't think it merits much attention, which is why the parents I know wouldn't condone it.

I suppose it depends on how cold it is outside, how many people are threatening you with suspension, and what what your parents might think.

Regardless, it's still young people speaking their minds, which is a good start, and it means they're starting to recognize their power as citizens.

I just pointed out that walking out of class doesn't show any kind of commitment. Obviously it's a fair inference that I don't think it merits much attention, which is why the parents I know wouldn't condone it.

Many kids risked suspension, detention, or 0's on tests...and still walked out.

Availability bias is causing people to perceive a much larger danger than actually exists. It's unfortunate that any student goes to school in fear. The "Am I next" mentality - particularly the sign I saw a student holding that was prominent in media coverage and some statements above is not healthy. It's understandable to be concerned and reasonable to seek solutions. The fear part is irrational however and concerned students should be comforted by faculty and parents who are aware of the facts and statistics.

Soon you'll be telling me something like crazy, like I don't have to worry about Ebola or terrorists or having a crockpot at a Super Bowl party, and instead should be concerned with my weight and lack of exercise.

Availability bias is causing people to perceive a much larger danger than actually exists. It's unfortunate that any student goes to school in fear. The "Am I next" mentality - particularly the sign I saw a student holding that was prominent in media coverage and some statements above is not healthy. It's understandable to be concerned and reasonable to seek solutions. The fear part is irrational however and concerned students should be comforted by faculty and parents who are aware of the facts and statistics.

7,000 kids have been killed by a gun since Sandy Hook in the U.S. That's a little more than 5 years. SEVEN THOUSAND KIDS.

There have been more than 1,600 mass shootings since Sandy Hook. That's nearly one per day.

Of that 7000, how many were as a result of gang affiliation or gang crossfire? 7000 kids werenít killed in school shootings a la Columbine and Parkland.

7000 is a problem, but if, I dunno, 6800 were killed by gangbangers with illegally bought/stolen handguns it begs a different conversation and solution than if they were killed in Columbine-style school shootings with AR-15s.

North America has 3 of the top 10 for homicides per 100k (not firearm homicides but homicides in general). Both Canada and Mexico have much stricter gun laws than the US, but still have higher than average murder rates as compared to the rest of the world.

In addition, per your chart the US's homicide by firearm rate is 6x that of Canada but the overall homicide rate is about 2.5x that of Canada.

Based on that, it appears Canadian murderers are more likely to use means other than firearms to kill their victims. I'm sure Canadian style gun laws might save some lives in the US, but certainly not what your chart would initially lead one to believe.

Of that 7000, how many were as a result of gang affiliation or gang crossfire? 7000 kids werenít killed in school shootings a la Columbine and Parkland.

7000 is a problem, but if, I dunno, 6800 were killed by gangbangers with illegally bought/stolen handguns it begs a different conversation and solution than if they were killed in Columbine-style school shootings with AR-15s.

But hey, at least it's a nice change from Jrr85's use of a variation of the Perfect Solution Fallacy: "if you care so much, why aren't you doing something about it?" where the "something" is implied to be a magic solution that involves "actual" sacrifice on the part of these demonstrators (and that could apparently be implemented by a bunch of kids still too young to vote and without the financial power and influence of the NRA and their minions in government).

Of that 7000, how many were as a result of gang affiliation or gang crossfire? 7000 kids werenít killed in school shootings a la Columbine and Parkland.

7000 is a problem, but if, I dunno, 6800 were killed by gangbangers with illegally bought/stolen handguns it begs a different conversation and solution than if they were killed in Columbine-style school shootings with AR-15s.

Meh. This seems like a goofy response.

School shootings are a small but important part of a larger problem. While there might be a targeted solution that is 'optimal' for school shootings, the solutions for gangbangers with illegal weapons will benefit people who happen to die of firearms who aren't in schools. The solutions for AR-15 style massacres will benefit people who happen to die of firearms who aren't in schools.

You know what the solutions are. There's no point in optimizing them for school shootings, you should be trying to optimize them for the entire nationwide gun problem. That includes accidental deaths, suicides, gang/criminal related deaths, and mass shootings.

Per 1 million people, there are 14.4 murders in Canada, 5.1 by firearm(s) so 9.3 by other means.

Per 1 million, there are 38.2 murders in the U.S., 29.7 by firearm(s) so 8.5 by other means.

I would take Canada's firearm (and overall) homicide rate over the U.S., yes.

Agree wholeheartedly that Canada has lower murder rate and would prefer theirs to ours. Focusing on homicide by firearm, however, distorts the facts. For some reason, North America (not just the US) is more violent than other first world countries.

That's not simply related to access to firearms and rifles (the focus of the latest outrage), are a blip in those statistics.

Of that 7000, how many were as a result of gang affiliation or gang crossfire? 7000 kids werenít killed in school shootings a la Columbine and Parkland.

7000 is a problem, but if, I dunno, 6800 were killed by gangbangers with illegally bought/stolen handguns it begs a different conversation and solution than if they were killed in Columbine-style school shootings with AR-15s.

Meh. This seems like a goofy response.

School shootings are a small but important part of a larger problem. While there might be a targeted solution that is 'optimal' for school shootings, the solutions for gangbangers with illegal weapons will benefit people who happen to die of firearms who aren't in schools. The solutions for AR-15 style massacres will benefit people who happen to die of firearms who aren't in schools.

You know what the solutions are. There's no point in optimizing them for school shootings, you should be trying to optimize them for the entire nationwide gun problem. That includes accidental deaths, suicides, gang/criminal related deaths, and mass shootings.

If you are arguing for gun confiscation, that's fine. In reality, that probably impacts mass shootings more than the type of violence actually driving our numbres, but under an idealized version of how it would work, that would address both types of problems (while creating more, as part of what you've done is just shift the balance of power to gang people who are more effective at using other means of violence).

But usually after mass shootings, people argue for things that would not have stopped the mass shooting in question (or most mass shootings). Things like background checks when a background check was passed (or wouldn't have applied regardless because the guns were stolen), assault rifle bans, limits on clips, or whatever.

The reality is that there is some low hanging fruit that we could grab that would impact things like gang violence but that would do little to nothing to address mass shootings. There just a different and more much more difficult nut to crack.

Per 1 million people, there are 14.4 murders in Canada, 5.1 by firearm(s) so 9.3 by other means.

Per 1 million, there are 38.2 murders in the U.S., 29.7 by firearm(s) so 8.5 by other means.

I would take Canada's firearm (and overall) homicide rate over the U.S., yes.

Agree wholeheartedly that Canada has lower murder rate and would prefer theirs to ours. Focusing on homicide by firearm, however, distorts the facts. For some reason, North America (not just the US) is more violent than other first world countries.

That's not simply related to access to firearms and rifles (the focus of the latest outrage), are a blip in those statistics.

Per 1 million people, there are 14.4 murders in Canada, 5.1 by firearm(s) so 9.3 by other means.

Per 1 million, there are 38.2 murders in the U.S., 29.7 by firearm(s) so 8.5 by other means.

I would take Canada's firearm (and overall) homicide rate over the U.S., yes.

Agree wholeheartedly that Canada has lower murder rate and would prefer theirs to ours. Focusing on homicide by firearm, however, distorts the facts. For some reason, North America (not just the US) is more violent than other first world countries.

That's not simply related to access to firearms and rifles (the focus of the latest outrage), are a blip in those statistics.

Per 1 million people, there are 14.4 murders in Canada, 5.1 by firearm(s) so 9.3 by other means.

Per 1 million, there are 38.2 murders in the U.S., 29.7 by firearm(s) so 8.5 by other means.

I would take Canada's firearm (and overall) homicide rate over the U.S., yes.

Agree wholeheartedly that Canada has lower murder rate and would prefer theirs to ours. Focusing on homicide by firearm, however, distorts the facts. For some reason, North America (not just the US) is more violent than other first world countries.

That's not simply related to access to firearms and rifles (the focus of the latest outrage), are a blip in those statistics.

We're part of North America last I checked. :P

Thanks for clarifying. LOL.

My point being, that the violence unique to North America doesn't have to be as bad if you were to implement some sensible gun regulations and controls.

Of that 7000, how many were as a result of gang affiliation or gang crossfire? 7000 kids werenít killed in school shootings a la Columbine and Parkland.

7000 is a problem, but if, I dunno, 6800 were killed by gangbangers with illegally bought/stolen handguns it begs a different conversation and solution than if they were killed in Columbine-style school shootings with AR-15s.

Meh. This seems like a goofy response.

School shootings are a small but important part of a larger problem. While there might be a targeted solution that is 'optimal' for school shootings, the solutions for gangbangers with illegal weapons will benefit people who happen to die of firearms who aren't in schools. The solutions for AR-15 style massacres will benefit people who happen to die of firearms who aren't in schools.

You know what the solutions are. There's no point in optimizing them for school shootings, you should be trying to optimize them for the entire nationwide gun problem. That includes accidental deaths, suicides, gang/criminal related deaths, and mass shootings.

Itís an important distinction because mixing all shootings together disguises the real risk of each type individually. Weíve established over and over again that ALL rifles/shotguns account for around 2% (~700/~30,000) firearms deaths annually. So clearly AR-15s are not a statistically valid issue. But if you want to ban them, which the left seems to have an inexplicable hardon to do, you must muddy the waters up by throwing unrelated statistics out there as seen above.

We have a gun violence problem in this country, but it is traceable to two main issues: 1 suicide and 2 urban gang fighting. Remove those two factors and the numbers go way way way down.